<?php
/**
 * <https://y.st./>
 * Copyright © 2018 Alex Yst <mailto:copyright@y.st>
 * 
 * This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
 * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 * the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
 * (at your option) any later version.
 * 
 * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
 * GNU General Public License for more details.
 * 
 * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
 * along with this program. If not, see <https://www.gnu.org./licenses/>.
**/

$xhtml = array(
	'<{title}>' => 'Finishing the school week',
	'takedown' => '2017-11-01',
	'<{body}>' => <<<END
<section id="drudgery">
	<h2>Drudgery</h2>
	<p>
		My discussion posts for the day:
	</p>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			Yeah, scalability is a problem for any system.
			Quite frankly, I&apos;m not sure how <strong>*we*</strong> can even exist ourselves.
			I mean, we&apos;re a system of interconnected cells, biologically speaking.
			I&apos;d think with how many cells we need to function, we&apos;d be unable to manage them all.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			Yeah, most sources focus on the costs between the two instead of the actual implementation details.
			Individuals often don&apos;t have the money to implement expensive solutions, so they need to go for the cost-effective one, even if it means lower-quality systems in place.
			As for businesses, they could afford better solutions, but care more about money than quality.
			Usually, when they appear to care about quality, it&apos;s actually a case of quality issues causing monetary issues, and it&apos;s the monetary issue&apos;s they&apos;re actually seeking to address.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			Oh, okay, gotcha&apos;.
			Thanks for the clarification!
		</p>
	</blockquote>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			You make a good point that Asynchronous Transfer Mode provides quality of service guarantees.
			Lost packets are easily detected and retransmitted.
			This is vital when you need to reliably ensure data reaches its destination.
			for some applications, such guarantees aren&apos;t needed, but I think for most modern uses, they are.
			Ethernet doesn&apos;t provide this needed feature, but most network services run over $a[TCP] these days which does, even over $a[LAN] implementations that don&apos;t themselves.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			I think if Asynchronous Transfer Mode&apos;s development had continued to this day, it&apos;s speeds would be compatible to that of Ethernet.
			I don&apos;t see any technical reason why the speeds would differ much other than the limitations of the older routers and switches.
			I agree that there are scalability issues with Ethernet as well, but I think Asynchronous Transfer Mode has it&apos;s own scalability issues too.
			For example, Asynchronous Transfer Mode can only handle so many concurrent connections through a given node before the connection tables become too bloated to be efficient.
			Your comparison of the two options was great though, and it was particularly interesting to read your description of Asynchronous Transfer Mode&apos;s four service type options.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			Sadly, I have to agree with you.
			People simply don&apos;t care until it hits close to home.
			Even those of us that <strong>*do*</strong> care get criticized by those that don&apos;t.
			Even my own mother, for example, used to get on my case all the time when I lived with her because steps I&apos;d take to minimise environmental damage would minorly inconvenience her.
			For example, I bike to get where I need to go, which takes longer, and she wanted me to instead drive a car, then spend the saved time with her, even though she didn&apos;t really have anything to do; mostly she&apos;d want to watch television together or something, where we wouldn&apos;t even talk to each other.
			I really didn&apos;t get her attitude.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			The report didn&apos;t mention particular pollutants.
			It&apos;s something I&apos;d like to look into when time allows, but it&apos;s been a busy week.
			Sorry.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			Right, like you said, human behaviours are causing climate change.
			The more CO<sub>2</sub> we produce, the more our planet suffers.
			However, the more people there are, the more CO<sub>2</sub> we produce.
			One person driving a car to work every day is not the same as seven point six billion people driving a car to work every day.
			This can be applied to just about all of our toxic behaviours.
			The more of us there are, the more total damage we do.
		</p>
		<p>
			Yes.
			We can change.
			As someone who is taking this course, I assume you care about your world and seek to avoid damaging it.
			Most people aren&apos;t like that though, and continue to engage in toxic behaviours.
			By cutting down on the number of people, we cut down on the damage done, at least for now, until we can get environmentalism to be the norm, not the outlier.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
	<blockquote>
		<p>
			I agree, the land (and the rest of the environment) is the most important resource we have at our disposal.
			We shouldn&apos;t be destroying it, as we then won&apos;t have it later.
			By killing our planet, we&apos;re going to kill ourselves, or rather, we&apos;re going to kill our future generations.
		</p>
		<p>
			Like you said, accountability is a huge factor.
			Maybe if people were held accountable for their waste production, they&apos;d take the time to actually care.
			As is, most people just don&apos;t, as they can just get away with it.
			Recycling is important, but many people just throw their recyclables in the trash, for example.
		</p>
	</blockquote>
</section>
END
);
